. <br />f- <br />r.. <br />6. Maintaining`Improveinents in:-Perpetuity: <br />2 Finally; petitioners argue that the planiimg commsson'erred`in failing:to- <br />. in perpetuity. <br />3 require'that Oakleigh Lane's improved pavement be. in <br />4 Petitioners note that the city does not currently maintain;Oakleigh Lane and has <br />5 no plans` 'to maintain it. Absent some provision for. perpetual 'maintenance, <br />6 petitioners. argue than Condition 20 is inadequate to ensure. that the paving <br />7 improvements will continue to serve their intended function. <br />8 Respondents argue, and we. agree, that petitioners do. not identify the <br />9 source of any legal requirement that the :city impose on. OMCor any other <br />10 entity the obligation to maintain Oakleigh:Lane's -improvements in perpetuity. <br />11 B. Traffic Impact.Analysis (TIA) <br />12 EC 9.8320(5)(c) requires a finding that .a proposed PUD.provides safe <br />13 and adequate transportation systems through compliance with the "provisions . <br />14 ofthe. Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC -9.8650 through `:.9.8680 where <br />15 applicable." See n 4. EC 9.8670 specifies four conditions- that trigger the <br />